tv [untitled] November 30, 2013 11:30am-12:01pm PST
vehicles have more than tripled. and we also have a situation where the homeless people across the board are completely under attack and for us, this, conversation is yet another attack. and we have the department of public works and the police department, and engaging in massive sweeps from tuesday morning to friday morning at 4:30 a.m. and down the major corridors in san francisco. and we have police, really relentlessly harassing people who are leaving in their vehicles whether they are large or small vehicles. we have, you know, we just had today, a huge opposition to a shelter being built, luckily it passed at every place, people are being under attack. and then we have here today, talk of expansion of something that is already had such a negative impact on people who are just simply struggling to survive. and no people were not offered the permanent housing that is
simply not true. there was an out reach done and there were warnings that this was going to come down, the, police, as you know started implementing the law before it was actually in effect and which is kind of classic what the homeless people see any way and they use whatever if they want to get rid of you and that is what they are facing and so this is yet another thing that increases the dialogue of hate that causes more stress, that does not move towards the solution and we want to work together on solution and we brought them to you and we would like to have a better dialogue on them. >> thank you. >> that is the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> that was an informational item only. i think that we have a closed session. >> yes, and it will be appropriate for our discussion to go to conduct a closed session. >> motion? >> move to closed session? >> second. >> all in favor, aye. >> and great, we are moved to the closed session. >> thank you it will take a minute to clear the room.
>> item 19, the board of directors met in closed session to discuss alan black and verses staoet attorney, the board of directors voted to settle the case, with the director nolan absent and anticipated litigation and no action. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> not disclosed. >> all right, directors, you are moving back to consideration of item 13. >> directors discussion on item 13, we have a lot of public comment and then we went to closed session, any comments from anyone? >> i have a couple of comments. >> one of the concerns is the quality of the vendor that we
are going to use and i did the research on the web on them and i know that in nevada, where they are based, the nevada transportation authority had the problem with the systems just in terms of privacy issues and i understand in new york they are running a test on 150 cabs and so my concern becomes, when we look at a 6 million dollar contract on an untested vendor, would it be more prudent to say that we do a pilot of 150 to 200 cabs to see if he can deliver the goods? >> it has one of the largest taxis fleet and they have a
fleet and, a limo fleet and a settle operation at the airport. and the technology that they have developed was over the years, some, the things that they developed in the house and seeing the utility of it for their own fleet, they decided to start this transportation infrastructure company. and this is not their first product. i believe that their first product was an advertising platform that was qualified by veriphone. >> and they have a cashiering system that is a software system that has been in operation, over a year and a half at the airport that handles 900,000 trips a year. so this is not the first technology project and there is a shuttle management system and this is not the first product and they have had other
successful software products before and as to write the integrity itself, it has been installed in several 100 cabs in las vegas, as a pilot program since july of 2013. and it is being installed into some limo fleets for the nevada transportation authority to collect data. and to enforce regulations with respect to limos. and so while they are a new company, they are not completely untested company, nor is there a completely untested product. and i have seen, demonstrations of it, and our it staff, and initially raised concerns before we ever entered into the first contract with fti which expressed the same perfectly legitimate concerns and however, after they saw the integrity of the program, demonstrated, that was no longer a concern for our it staff, they felt that this was
>> any other questions, directors? >> not so much, questions, just a few comments, if that is okay. there were goals stated on the record for the agency. i think that goes to the advertising perhaps for the apps that are currently in use and we talked about the traffic but i think they send end of the day is the goal of having a city wide app that really leverages the entire or a large portion of the fleet and we have two apps that are hopefully getting closer to that but that is really the goal here. and so, to enable that, we need the data, and to enable that we need to gather the data and i think that when we first envisioned this, my goal personally and i think that there are others here who agreed with this and maybe including the director is that the companies would supply this data. and you know, it has been mandated that they collect the
data internally and it would obviously save us money if we got the data from them, there are some claims that they have not gotten a written spec, so forth and so on, there is some claims that the companies have not been giving the ability to provide this data, i think that rather than figure out who spilled whose milk here and we have certainly heard it from both sides and the thing to do is that as the existing. proposal says is to give to the first to give the data time to be provided and have the written spec given in the clear form to the taxi cab companies to move forward with the data gathering and regulatory, you know, assessment aspects of the contract.
i would propose an amendment if that is all right, madam chair woman. >> yes. >> and what i would say is that we postpone or take the portion of the contract dedicated to the expenditure for the on board devices. and postpone that portion until after february first, making clear that after february first, it will require board approval for the agency to make that expenditure portion of the contract, the rest of the contracts would go forward.
and in the meantime, let me be personally clear, i have heard from the taxi cab companies that we did not have the real chance to give this information to the agency. and mr. son made the point in public comment. okay, now is your chance, you are going to get a written spec, and so let us know if you don't. and then, use this opportunity to see if we can work this out so that the information can come from you, practice rather than putting another on board device in the cabs at the expense of the mta and raising all of the issues that we have talked about today. with that amendment, which i guess that i should just say, that is my proposed amendment. and did i state it clearly enough? >> could you, could someone rephrase the amendment, please? >> so the amendment will be to require additional action by the sfmta board of directors, prior to the expenditure for the on board devices after
february one, 2014. >> okay. >> and i would like to get a motion and a second and then i would like to open it up for public comment on the amendment only. >> could i have a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> and i would like to open it up for public comment on the amendment and if you like to comment on it please line up and you will have two minutes. >> directors, thanks for making that amendment and i do want to point out clearly that you are giving a contract to a company despite what they said have never facilitated it and never put a dispatch system in the fleet and it is very suspect from this industry, and as a matter of fact, i feel very strongly, that this vendor wants to put in equipment so that they are, and we are beholding to them in terms of services and equipment that they control in the future.
i just want to make that clear and put it on the record. i suspect this company wants to use a cloud based meter system and make sure that they can charge for air time and other services using the equipment that they would deploy. if we are able to use the existing equipment, i want to address the fact, please, if you owned a small business, do you think that it is appropriate for a government agency to say, we are going to take your data, and we are going to give it to any third party, for-profit company with or without your agreement, to start putting your business in making profits for this company, and i cannot tell you how disruptive this will be. and it is another thing to give it to a company without the choice and consent to put the cabs on the network, that is in this plan and it is not being addressed. and is it unreasonable, for me, as a small business owner, to
say, please, let me have some say in, that data that i give you, about giving it to someone else before they put all of my cabs on their network. that is still in this plan. please, i ask you, respect my business. respect the efforts that i am doing to provide service and look at that very carefully. finally. the private industry has already done this. flywheel has two-thirds of the cabs on the network and soon, probably every cab, and we are going to go to the ford with this? >> thank you. >> next speaker here we are and i can tell you about the transportation and i know them really well and if you have been to las vegas, you know that there is no dispatch cabs, as much in the suburbs as there is in san francisco. and it is the airport to the hotel. 900,000 people are transported from the airport to the hotels, okay, and so when you can't
call a cab and you can't flag a cab in las vegas, you have to be at a hotel. and that is how it works down there, and you can't go on the streets to flag a cab. >> specifically addressed to the amendment. >> just the amendment, cnt has already given the information to donovan and you can ask him that he has everything that he is looking for our computer dispatch and it is already there and you know what? it is free. >> thank you. >> our next speaker. >> all right. andrew, and i will speak directly to the amendment and i appreciate the opportunity to address you, i think that it is important as i said to provide the written specifications and i think that it would be unreasonable to say that the written specifications if they are written in such a way that we can't respond, there ought to be an opportunity at least to take a look at it, and let me give you an example. right now the staff requires a 15 second, real time data and i think that most of the cab
companieds are 20 and i think that it is likely that we can get to 15 seconds but i would hate to see the specifications say that i want all of the items in red ink and knowing that the data comes in blue ink and so i would like to get the written specification and like to have the opportunity to come back and say that these are all of the things that we can do and there is a little bit of at least a discussion about how we can make that data meet the requirements that are written. because sometimes, i think in error, some people will write up some things knowing that they cannot be met and i hope that is not the case here but we are a little bit concerned. we have the data and we are more than willing to provide it to you, the written specifications will organize that data and make sure that you will get it but i hope that the written specifications that come out of fti are not written in a way that does not allow us to respond appropriately. thank you, next speaker. >> with regard to the special attention to the hardware or
the software, i think that kim is correct, to ring a bell of warning about the efforts to retool the whole situation so that through the cloud computing or whatever sorts of devices with webb 2.0 or other ways of administering the fees. and more comes under the rubric. and it is in our gate. and so, if there is a sneaky way of creating more fees, that is not going to work, very well. and certainly will not be popular. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> the heart is that they do not want a universal app system. they want to have their own
appand they want to contract with the companies that they desire to contract with to provide these app services. and their objections are basically the same that they had to centralizing or integrating the dispatch and it is, it is proprietary and understandable that these are understandable and private business and they like to control everything that they possibly can. and first of all we are in a regulated situation, second of all, we are in a competitive crisis, right now. and we have to have the tools and we have to take the steps that are necessary to combat that. i am still greatly concerned about all of this information sitting in the mta's computers, and without any guidelines or standards, for their use, i would, you know, if this goes through, i would love to see some of that put in the form of regulation.
and so that we know what the information is going to be used for, how and where and when and why. >> however, that does not mean that the eta system should not go forward in and off itself, it is simply a matter of having a method of locating a particular cab so that is on the cloud based system there can be contact between a rider and a driver. and i think that it makes sense to do that on the city wide basis if we don't, we are digging a deeper hole for ourselves, >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> i know that you have given this a lot of thought and i appreciate that you are trying to make an amendment here to make it, you know, more
palatable for everyone. my concern is, that i am thankful for the thought process of the first step that has been taken and my concerns will remain for a while on some of the things that have already been mentioned about the data collection and how it is going to be used and so forth and i guess that my concerns are, yes, we are regulated and it is never going to change and, we are regulated more than any city that i am aware of in the country and i don't expect that to change. i just don't want it to get to the point where it is so over reaching that somebody has forgotten about, that they are the regulators and we are running in the private business and we need to follow the regulations and we don't need to tell someone how to run the business, and i think that is where our concerns come and it is not a matter if we don't want to cooperate but we are running a private business and we are do follow the regulations as soon as the people tell us that here is how you have to do it, we get concerned. thank you for your amendment, and director, and you have
proposed. and i think that i am sure that we are going to continue to watch things closely. so that we don't or something else does not jump out of the bag and bite us. okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> any more public comment? >> we have a motion and a second on the amend. >> could i have a vote? >> all in favor >> aye. >> and no, opposed and now we have the amended before us, do i have a motion on the amended, and a second? >> second. >> second, all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> great. >> and the aye have it and that passes as well >> madam chair and directors, that concludes the business before you this evening, >> just a reminder that we are adjourning in memory of..., thank you, sorry. >> thank you. >> to
i want to thank sftv for brooefrt today's hearings specifically charles and mapping i didn't and our clerk today is andrea we're frigs from ms. miller. thank you, ms. miller for your service and madam clerk any announcements >> yes. please silence all electronic devices. completed speaker cards to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. >> madam clerk, call item 1. >> this is the instructions on the academy of scientists in gblg park.
>> i will let you know techniques agenda is a beau's one but this is a small item to continue for a week. so is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we have a motion to continue the motion >> we can do that without opposition. madam clerk, please calls items 2 and 3 together >> item 2 the resolution making changes to the special tax districts 2009 to authorize the retrofit and a item 3 is a resolution for the local goals and policies for the communities district and special tax district. >> thank you a staff is here from the mayor's office. >> thank you very much for having me. just wanted to reiterate those
two items are two more of the administrator steps for the loans for seismic retrofits. happy to answer any questions >> colleagues, any questions. in this case we'll move to public utilities comment seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues e colleagues i'll entertain a motion to 0 move those with positive recommendations we can do that without opposition. that will be the order. madam clerk any additional business before the committee no additional business. we are adjourned. thank
and thank you to the sftv for broadcasting this. we can go ahead and start with roll call >> audrey joseph. glendon hyde. we have quorum i did get a late e-mail from naomi akers she couldn't attend. all right. so we don't have a huge agenda hopefully, we'll keep this under an hour. the first thing is any public comment? this is for anything that say you feel protons to the business of the entertainment commission. seeing none, public comment is closed. moving on to item 2 is the rough and approval of minutes november
filth. commissioners i don't know if you have any changes to make if not happy to entertain a motion >> i move to approve. >> second. >> audrey joseph is there any public comment from the minutes of this last meeting. seeing none, supervisor hiding. audrey joseph. barbara campagnoli. item 3 report from our executive director take it away director king >> good evening i will make this short. hello. i'm going to mix this up. and talk about something we talked about latin last night.
a buff of us went to the lesion project and the heritage sf a nonprofit they added writing to new bars and restaurants to their program and we assisted in putting the event go together last time. it was full probable 50 or 60 people. there were owners felt legacy bar that showed up. some of you might know this gentleman talked about writing a with book and we offered our assistance in offering our information as well as skwg for phone calls folks who worked behind the bar. it's neat e neat he wants to hear steroids from people who
work trudging along every night to keep the bars and a restaurants here. the criteria is 40 years plus and there's 75 of them. that's a lot. they got some coverage and if you guys if you look at the list and have any other to add they're to do another round in six months >> are they looking at for bartender that have experience. >> yes. >> okay. let me know. we can't discuss this but i want to update the commission it's positive - are we okay media services is running away is supervisor chiu did a roll call
to create some of the broadway alcoholic use district for the area between columbus and montgomery so i'll transit to you once it's accomplished probably on line tomorrow at some point the legislation by the e-mail like all legislation it's going to sit for thirty days. i don't know that the supervisors asked this commission formerly to make any comments but again, i'm going to ask we don't discuss it it wasn't on the agenda this evening and lastly let me go over the corrective actions. this is based on complaint or other actions for resident. i'm going to turn it over to